the key

[Wickerman]

Well noted Claire, Curious, but I think it's what Mrs Harvey might say that Heinrich is afeared of, she might throw Barnett under the bus!

I know, Mrs Cox heard Kelly singing, as did others, but they didn't see who she was with, did they? Hmm!

Oops, Mrs Cox saw Kelly with Blotchy about 11:45pm, good enough? - normally, but with the atmosphere that pervades this forum, we might as well all jump on the "Liars" bandwagon, and declare, Cox's evidence screws up a perfectly good alibi,.....here's a thought, we'll dismiss it, she didn't exist!
(Dammit, she appeared at the inquest)
Ok, someone appeared at the inquest using her name?, or, perhaps she was lying, parroting?, any other suggestions?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have nothing to fear from Mrs Harvey, yes she did leave Barnett at Kelly's place, but she also saw Kelly later, and Kelly was by herself.

"As far as has been at present ascertained, the murdered woman was last seen alive shortly after eleven o'clock on Thursday night by Mrs. Harvey, a young woman who was on intimate terms with her, and who lives in New-court, Dorset-street. Mrs. Harvey says Kelly was at that time going home alone."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

Ok, so we know the Star was wrong, again, about the last time Kelly was seen alive, but these were early days. More importantly for Barnett, the star witness against him, should she have chosen to take that position, Mrs Harvey, can now stand as part of his defense.
Mrs. Harvey saw Mary Kelly out alone sometime after 11:00pm.

(Psst. Didn't take Kelly long to hook up with Blotchy, did it?)

All's well that ends well, now you can rest Heinrich.
Jon S.

[curious]

Sorry, Heinrich, but that's not sound logic. His admission is rather less self-incriminating than Prater's, or Mary Ann Cox's, or poor Mrs Pickett whose husband stopped her from going to shut Mary Jane up when her singing got too irritating, given that all those incidents occurred after Barnett had gone. It beggars belief that there is a suite of people (Prater; Cox; Pickett; even Hutchinson, God help us) who independently testify to having seen her between 9pm and 3am, but that Barnett is more implicated because there is another person to testify that he saw Kelly earlier in the evening.

And that statement from Maria Harvey isn't exactly watertight.

And Mary Ann Cox's and Mrs. Pickett's information dovetails or corroborrates each others in that Mary Kelly told Mrs. Cox she was going to sing about 11:45 p.m.

At midnight, Kelly is still singing.

By 12:30, Mrs. Pickett had had enough and intended to go tell her to stop singing, but Mr. Pickett told her to leave the poor woman alone. Can you imagine how annoying it would be for a drunken neighbor singing in the middle of the night? But perhaps that was a more pleasant noise than was usually heard in the Millers Court area.

When Cox returned around 1, Kelly was singing -- still or again -- and the light was on.

When Cox returns at 3 p.m., all is quiet.

In my opinion, these "sightings" fit together like a hand in a glove.

curious

[claire]

No one testified to having seen Mrs Prater with Mary Kelly, Jon, so Joseph Barnett remains the last person seen alone with Mary Kelly and who admitted to this. It is one piece of incriminating evidence against Joseph Barnett which, when taken with other testimony by himself and others, amounts to a stronger case against him than any other suspect.

Sorry, Heinrich, but that's not sound logic. His admission is rather less self-incriminating than Prater's, or Mary Ann Cox's, or poor Mrs Pickett whose husband stopped her from going to shut Mary Jane up when her singing got too irritating, given that all those incidents occurred after Barnett had gone. It beggars belief that there is a suite of people (Prater; Cox; Pickett; even Hutchinson, God help us) who independently testify to having seen her between 9pm and 3am, but that Barnett is more implicated because there is another person to testify that he saw Kelly earlier in the evening.

And that statement from Maria Harvey isn't exactly watertight.

[Heinrich]

Hi Heinrich, but your suggestion really has no bearing on whether Barnett is guilty or not because Mrs Prater saw Kelly later that night..



Regards, Jon S.

No one testified to having seen Mrs Prater with Mary Kelly, Jon, so Joseph Barnett remains the last person seen alone with Mary Kelly and who admitted to this. It is one piece of incriminating evidence against Joseph Barnett which, when taken with other testimony by himself and others, amounts to a stronger case against him than any other suspect.

[Wickerman]

This makes Joseph Barnett the only person who was last seen in Mary Kelly's company and who admitted as much.

Hi Heinrich, but your suggestion really has no bearing on whether Barnett is guilty or not because Mrs Prater saw Kelly later that night..

"...but the last time I saw her alive was at about nine o'clock on Thursday night. I stood down at the bottom of the entry, and she came down. We both stood talking a bit, thinking what we were going to do, and then she went one way and I went another. I went to see if I could see anybody." Mrs. Prater adds with frankness, "She had got her hat and jacket on, but I had not. I haven't got a hat or a jacket. We stood talking a bit about what we were going to do, and then I said, 'Good night, old dear,' and she said 'Good night, my pretty.' She always called me that. That," said Mrs. Prater, "was the last I saw of her."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;187004]

....
It is impossible to build a whole theory on who was JTR based on entry to
Kelly's room.

Obviously.

Earlier in the thread, it was put forward that the murderer could have simply closed the door behind him in order to lock it. I've lived in some very old houses in this country (late 1800's - early 1900's) where the lock will do exactly that, so there wasn't a need to lock it from the inside, usually.

See Post 194 for an illustration of a typical self-locking spring lock used in Victorian times.

[harry]

Ausgirl,
Some locks were spring,some lever,and some spring lever.It is not known which type was on the door to Kelly's room,not officially that is.Some Churches still have locks that can only be opened and secured with a key.With luck you might find one.

[Ausgirl]

Earlier in the thread, it was put forward that the murderer could have simply closed the door behind him in order to lock it. I've lived in some very old houses in this country (late 1800's - early 1900's) where the lock will do exactly that, so there wasn't a need to lock it from the inside, usually. (edit - and sometimes a plain sliding bolt above or below the lock as well).

I'm simply too far away to conveniently wander over to London and check this for myself - but there has to be some heritage buildings somewhere in the area in which spring locks like the one Kelly had might have survived? Perhaps there's some local lock-obsessed historian somewhere, who might shed light on the probable mechanism used? It's worth exploring more directly (and conclusively), I think, since it seems a key (pun fully intended) point in establishing why the door was locked behind the killer.

As to gaining entry, there's a dozen scenarios I can think of immediately as to how the killer got in without a key - some admittedly more probable than others but then, if all human action was limited to what is foreseeably and neatly 'probable' we'd not be surprised by each other so very often.

I agree, this is currently far too flimsy a point from which to make any sound conclusions. However, if the locks of the period generally used in those sorts of houses could -only- be locked from inside with a key -- different story.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Not so, Rubyretro, there was a sturdy spring lock necessitating the owner of the property to bash-in the door with a pickax handle

.

A lock that was only worth something if it was locked when the killer arrived outside the room, if Mary didn't let him into the room herself,
or if he wasn't in possession of the lost key.

Not to mention the broken window enabling the lock to be opened from the outside.

Any known or unknown suspect could of got in by one of those means -take your pick as to which you think most likely (although, the most unlikely method might be the true one). It's only guesswork, because we will never know.

It is impossible to build a whole theory on who was JTR based on entry to
Kelly's room.

[Heinrich]

And the fact remains that Kelly's room had no security at all ...

Not so, Rubyretro, there was a sturdy spring lock necessitating the owner of the property to bash-in the door with a pickax handle.

given that Mary was a gregarious prostitute, the field is wide open on that account.

With the documented evidence we have, it is more sensible to believe Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly rather than any Tom, Dick, or Harry.

[curious]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;186950]

Congrats to you, Curious ! You have joined an extremely elite club. I'm really miffed not to be worth having as a member.

Thank you, Ruby,

It's actually a very easy club to join.

You have only to mirror his attitude, do as he as done to you, but more damning still -- try to force him to look at something with his own eyes.

Whoever printed that nonsense about mirroring someone to make them like you didn't know what he was talking about.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

As of today, Rubyretro, only one person is on my "ignore" list. That is reserved only for those [/QUOTE...

Congrats to you, Curious ! You have joined an extremely elite club. I'm really miffed not to be worth having as a member.

No one in their right mind would willingly visit a social network where there is an expectation of being insulted by a total stranger.

I have some sympathy here..but that is the way with Casebook, and if you are really interested in learning about the case then you will just have to put up with it...and not take it so seriously as to 'ignore' people that want to help you. Lighten up, Heindrich..

By the way, it is not necessary to write of me in the third person as I am still here, for the present

.
don't resort to threats..There are some burly men here (I hope ? I'm looking over my shoulder as I type this ..)

Although we have had differences of opinion about the evidence against Joseph Barnett, I have, I believe, addressed all and every objection you had regarding my interpretation. To disagree without being disagreeable is not hard to do.

You dismiss rather than address. Debates are fun -if you're convinced of your point of view, then try and answer the arguments rationally rather than just
putting down your opponent. Consider changing your mind -not a weakness but a strength- if you think that your adversary has a better argument.

Kind of you to say so, Robert. I did read Bruce Paley's book some years ago and it was about the best researched one on the subject of Joseph Barnett that I had come across. Undoubtedly he has influenced my thinking. It was his mention of the lost key (the subject of this thread) which got me thinking that Joseph Barnett, with his easy access to 13, Miller's Court, bears special scrutiny. And the more I learned about him and Mary Kelly, the more I suspected him above other names and phantoms.

And the fact remains that Kelly's room had no security at all, and although
one might have (arguably) have needed special knowledge to get in, given that Mary was a gregarious prostitute, the field is wide open on that account.

[Heinrich]

Curious -I'd love to see H's view of the boards when he's put everyone
on his 'ignore' list !
No one will be allowed to disagree with him ! -or rather he will banish anyone that does.

As of today, Rubyretro, only one person is on my "ignore" list. That is reserved only for those who make posts intended to belittle, offend, or otherwise want only to condescend. No one in their right mind would willingly visit a social network where there is an expectation of being insulted by a total stranger.
By the way, it is not necessary to write of me in the third person as I am still here, for the present. Although we have had differences of opinion about the evidence against Joseph Barnett, I have, I believe, addressed all and every objection you had regarding my interpretation. To disagree without being disagreeable is not hard to do.

Hi Heinrich
Bruce Paley, Leanne Perry, Richard Nunweek and Shannon Christopher were fairly staunch Barnettists, but they were wishy-washy ditherers compared with you.

Kind of you to say so, Robert. I did read Bruce Paley's book some years ago and it was about the best researched one on the subject of Joseph Barnett that I had come across. Undoubtedly he has influenced my thinking. It was his mention of the lost key (the subject of this thread) which got me thinking that Joseph Barnett, with his easy access to 13, Miller's Court, bears special scrutiny. And the more I learned about him and Mary Kelly, the more I suspected him above other names and phantoms.

[curious]

Curious -I'd love to see H's view of the boards when he's put everyone
on his 'ignore' list !
No one will be allowed to disagree with him ! -or rather he will banish anyone that does.
Heinrich not the controlling type ? Hmmn...

It's certainly a funny way of learning about the case.

Actually, Ruby, I've been going DUH at myself! It was not about me being rude to Henrich (he had actually done almost exactly the same thing to me earlier), but it was about his refusal to even look at anything that might disprove his set-in-concrete theory.

If I write something, he just refutes it and does not have to think about it. However, if it is something he finds himself . . . . .

Just his usual refusal to even look or see possibilities.

curious

[Robert]

Hi Heinrich

Bruce Paley, Leanne Perry, Richard Nunweek and Shannon Christopher were fairly staunch Barnettists, but they were wishy-washy ditherers compared with you.